About your Search

20100101
20100131
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
, the united states supreme court handed a huge victory to the special interests and lobbyists and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein and corporate influence. it's strikes at our democracy itself. by a 5-4 vote, the court overturned more than a century of law, including a bipartisan campaign finance lot written by john mccain and russ feingold that barred corporations from using the nato clout by running advertisements for or against candidates. this opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. this gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on average -- on advertising, swaying voters to vote their way or punishing those who did not. that means any public servant who has the courage to stand up to special interest and stand up for the american people can find themselves under assault come election time. even foreign corporations can now get into the action. i cannot think of anything more devastating to the public interest. the last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in washington or more powe
çñr for an opening statement. çpresident of the united states okçthere areçç potential cons for the future of the white house. çthe first hearingçt(çym had: coming to testify. qi give them credit for coming hereç andçç telling us what unfolded. çi]çóçeven more than that, ie thatç the white house still refuses to provide her as a witnessç and refuses toi] gives any information whatsoever. i respectfullyqqç disagreeççe v:secretç service except its responsibility. thelq7çç part of the white houc ççó7!çñrt(çi]çw3çthe forie secret service wasuw3 told noto be at the gateç -- i amçóm]v:, where the secret service was yçt(zvcalledç that the white e protocol office would not beç t mythe':utç with them and woulç notñrçw3 be there to dos3ç ap check. çfor whatevernbç reason, we dt knowçw3çç obviously, -- we dt know. changing the policy could have had terrible consequences. i do not know what they will not lead as a rogers, a peer. -- let miss rogers, pierre. -- let miss rogers come up here. we do know that a memo was sent o
about the situation in uganda. will you please talk to us a little bit more about how the united states can protect the rights of lgbt people in those areas where their rights are not respected? >> yes. first, let me say that, over this past year, we have elevated into our human rights dialogue and a public statements a very clear message about protecting the rights of the lgbt community worldwide. we are particularly concerned about some of the specific cases that have come to our attention around the world. there have been no organized efforts to kill and maim gays and lesbians in some countries that we have spoken out about and also conveyed are very strong concerns about to their governments, not that they were governmentally implemented or even that the government was aware of them, but that the government's need to pay much greater attention to the kinds of abuses we have seen in iraq, for example. we're deeply concerned about some of the stories coming out of iran. in large measure and reaction, we think, in response to the elections back in june, there have been abuses committed
obama has learned is that it is really hard to be president of the united states. [laughter] really, is a nightmare of a job. his american power is about two contradictory things. on the one thing, -- on the one hand, as a global, leading power, we are trying to keep the status pretty much in quo. on the other hand, there is this seedings source of capitalist renewal -- seething source of capital is renewal. we are causing as much trouble when we are inventing the internet as when we are invading iraq. we are blowing up the status quo at the same time that we are trying to defend it and the president of the united states is caught at the board tax of these conflicting issues. president obama -- at the vortexes of these conflicting issues -- the vortexes of these conflicting issues. use of president obama having to wrestle with all of these tensions. could you imagine the nerve it took to walk into closed-door sessions, blowing up diplomatic protocol. in doing this, not knowing if it was born to work. -- going to work. i wrote about an important moment for president obama. this will
of state hillary clinton meets with the 18th president. she assured that the united states would bring medical supplies and food and continue to help with rescue efforts. this is about 10 minutes. >> the press conference will be very difficult because of the noise of the motors. i think mrs. clinton for her visit, which shows, once again, her interest and support for haiti. since the earthquake, president obama has clearly stated how much help the united states and other countries should give to haiti. the last initiative of putting the two last proceeding presidents together to form a fund is, again, a sign of great support. the u.s. aid is already on the territory. i just visited a victim who has been, since five days, taken care of by the military and american medical support in haiti. mrs. clinton's visit really warms our heart today, but especially to reassure the priorities and needs and the coordination and needs to be done since the earthquake. i will not talk on behalf of mrs. clinton, i will let her express what the american government wants to do towards haiti. >> first, --
that has affected the people of haiti. but i want to assure the people of haiti that the united states is a friend, a partner in compound and a supporter and we will work with your government under the direction of your president to assist in any way that we can. we had a very good meeting about all of the priorities of the haitian government and the haitian people. we are focused on providing humanitarian assistance, water, food, medical help to those that are suffering. we also are working with the haitian government on the continuing rescue of those that can be rescued. there are nearly 30 teams from all over the world that are working right now to rescue people who are still alive. most of the people that the american teams have rescued our haitian. the president just met a man who survived for all of these days and we are very grateful for the rescue. we discussed the priorities of restoring communication, electricity and transportation. and we agreed that we will be coordinating closely together to achieve these goals. >> i am very proud of the work that our american embassy has
offices in asia. xdit is interesting that there s not a run in the united states. you could take the boards representation and say that it did not spark a run in the united states. the clearing house, having lost out of the public record instead of the record on appeal, comes up with one other example, in northern iraq. -- northern rock. and then there is a news leak. >> you are saying that these examples show that the claim of prejudice, based on the possible run of a bank is speculative. >> indeed. >> i am looking at exemption 8 and it is discussing the exemption of banks. you can deduce that congress recognizes that the soundness of the banking system should be brought to bear on the disclosure obligation. this kind of concern is not speculative. >> i have a couple of responses to that. the easiest is that theym board did not invoke section 8. the record makes clear that these are not -- >> i am not saying that they are. the danger of a run on a bank i. but exemption 8 says that congress recognized that this wasxd its cousin and could be damaging to the banking system. >> i a
. and in the historic moment when president ronald reagan selected her to join the supreme court of the united states, the first woman to do so. justice o'connor, while remaining always faithful brought with her the experience and pragmatism of her days on the ranch. her display a keen understanding of the separation of powers and the important role in our nation played by the states, the workshop of democracy. upon the retirement, justice o'connor turned back -- she has become an outspoken advocate with a particular concern about the corrosive effects of money on state and judicial races. she has spoken out in favor of a game changing subjects and merit based selections in which a roster is submitted to the governor and that makes his or her pick. and after a term, the judge is presented to an election. it is a system that has conducted transparently and is able to assure high quality judges and assure some element of accountability she helped shepherd to the state legislature and serve the state of arizona well. at a time when the decision has cast a harsh light on the role of all kinds of politica
. >> and the laws of the state of georgia. >> and the laws of the state of georgia. >> and of the united states of america. >> and of the united states of america. >> i further swear. >> i further swear. >> that i am not the holder of any office of trust. >> that i am not the holder of any office of trust. >> under the govern of the united states. >> under the government of the united states. >> any other state. >> any other state. >> or any foreign state. >> or any foreign state. >> which i am prohibited from holding. >> which i am prohibited from holding. >> by the laws of the state of georgia. >> by the laws of the state of georgia. >> and that i am not the holder of. >> and that i am not the holder of. >> any unaccounted for public money. >> any unaccounted for public money. >> due this state. >> due this state. >> or any political subdivision. >> or any political subdivision. >> or authority thereof. >> or authority thereof. >> i further swear. >> i further swear. >> that i will uphold and support. >> that i will uphold and support. >> the ethics code. >> the ethics code. >> of the city of
that are in the united states be covered under this plan? since the taxpayers are paying for this anyway, will we also have to pick them up, too, on this? guest: this has been a sleeper issue in the debate that got some attention during the summer and faded away as abortion got more attention. i am expecting that this will get to be more of an issue as we see the bill in march. the senate bill, broadly speaking, neither of the bills would use government money to pay for care for illegal immigrants. in fact, there would be no money going directly for illegal immigrants in the bill to help give them care. however, in the house bill, there is one wrinkle that gives illegal immigrants may be some benefits that could be seen as helpful. that would allow illegal immigrants to buy policies on the exchange. they would have to pay their entire way the government would not pay any money for them but they would be participating in what amounts to either a state or federal government-run exchange. that is in the house bill. we expect the senate bill to form the backbone of the final bill. we are hearing from some
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10